LECTURE NOTES :
Introduction to International Relations
IRO - Leiden University
Dr. Nicolas Blarel
6441HIIR8
(Made in) 2021-2022
Cyprien VENOT
, Contents
Part 1: Introduction, Concepts and History - 3
Why do we need Concepts and Theories of International Relations? (Lecture 1) - 3
Why do we need to know History to understand International Relations? (Lec. 2) - 7
Can we understand the future of International Relations with present analytical tools? - 13
Part 2: Theories - 20
Realism (Lec. 4) - 20
Liberalism (Lec. 5) - 26
Constructivism (Lec. 6) - 32
Marxism and IPE (Lec. 7) - 36
Critical Approaches: Post-Structuralism and Feminism (Lec. 8) - 40
Is the study of IR Western-centric? (Lec. 9) - 44
Part 3: Illustrative Cases - 49
Why do states go to war ? (Lec. 10) - 49
Do Non-State Actors matter in international relations? (Lec. 11) - 53
,Important; Exemple; Actors; Date; Number; Definition
Part 1 - Introduction, Concepts and History
Dr Nicolas Blarel
Why do we need concepts of IR ?
(Baylis et al., Introduction; Jack Snyder “One World, Rival Theories”)
I. Why do we need concepts ? Why do we theorize IR ? What are IR
theories ?
Concepts are contested for different reasons, the most contested one is
probably power (hard, soft, smart…). Firstly their definition is rarely consensual.
Secondly, their meaning is not fixed on time, concepts evolve. Thirdly, because of
ethno-centrism, it is criticized that a lot of ways we define power, states, etc, were
defined in the west (west-centered). Why do we always build our concepts around 17th
century Europe ?
They are however useful, to:
● Make sense of complex realities
● Make sure we are talking about the same things
○ If we agree on the way we define democracy, we are talking about the
same things. If we agree about a concept we can have a constructive
dialogue.
● Ensure some degree of constructive dialogue
● Develop and evaluate theories
○ When we agree on what causes what, we can evaluate causal
statements and theories.
We need theories because real-life is too complex, with too many moving parts,
data points, variables. If we think life is too complex we can’t make sense of it. The
way to parse through that complexity is to see patterns, regularities across time and
space, make theories and argue why x leads to y. Theories go beyond mere
description, they are an explanation to the questions “why did this happen ?”. For
example, we can look at the siege of Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, in recent days
and in the past. What are the patterns in these two events and why did it happen ?
They also help us anticipate, and try to see if something might happen in the past.
Scholars may not have expected Kabul to fall so fast, but we could have anticipated.
Example: What led to WWI ?
● Immediate cause: Assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand
● Many other structural causes:
○ Nationalism, Arms race, Alliances & Entanglements, Imperialism, Power
transition, Domestic politics, Preemptive war (Schlieffen Plan)...
● So which cause is most important ?
● It is actually still an ongoing debate between IR theories
3
, ● Causal explanations are derived from theories (set of assumption)
II. Many different theoretical perspectives/traditions in IR: different
lenses
(Snyder, 2004)
III. What are “IR” ?
Interactions between states units, or states and non-states actors:
- The study of war and peace was consequential, as it determined many IR as
well as the future of a state.
- Trade was also very important, international political economy
- International agreements, why do states decide to sign an agreement ?
There are distinctions to be made. First there has to be two actors
→ Bilateral relations (recognise a border, agree to a treaty... ) OR
→ Multilateral relations, where a group of states agree on (for example) standard of
weights, trade, multilateral agreements. A type of multilateral relations → The UN
Any unilateral state action (or inaction) is also important for IR.
→ Everything the US does has an impact on IR (joining a trade agreement, intervening
in a war, signing a treaty, leaving a treaty... ). Everything about their foreign policy
will affect other states.
But relations also revolve around transnational relations (relations between
state/sub-state actors and non-state actors or multiple non-state actors) → for e.g: Fifa
and the host country, ISIS and boko haram...
,Important; Exemple; Actors; Date; Number; Definition
International politics VS national (or domestic) politics
→ Also called the level of analysis (different levels of decision making)
1. International
2. National/Domestic
3. Individual - some say that dispositions, psychological profiles, ideas, can have
an impact on international politics
- E.g: we can’t explain WWII if we don’t look at Hitler’s profile
Does this distinction still matter in a “globalised” world ?
→ Yes: In the theoretical perspective → analysis of complex reality
National order vs international anarchy
- Concept of higher authority and social contract (Hobbes - “War of all against
all”)
- “Fear and I were born twins together” (1588) - after spanish armada
- The spaniards had a supposedly invisible armada, and as these news
came to Hobbes mother, she wanted to premature birth
- That is why Hobbes said he was born at the same time as fear
- This led him to write the Leviathan
- A lot of the prescriptions coming from this is that states should focus on
themselves → Self-help
- ‘Level of analysis’ framework is a type of theorizing
- Analytical tool to think and organize IR
IR scholars are conscious of domestic, international, personal matters, but they
decided to explain a series of events across time/space to simplify this level of
analysis, focusing on all frameworks.
IV. What is a state and what is not ?
According to International law (Montevideo convention), it needs: a permanent
population that doesn’t keep changing due to territory, a defined territory (with
well-defined borders), a diplomatic capacity that allows it to enter into relations with
other states. But they are problems: Declarative vs constitution theory of statehood,
how is the “state” created in practice ? Internal sovereignty: states monopolize some
functions within its territory, vs External sovereignty: recognition (by other states)
and autonomy.
According to IR scholars: this central, hierarchical, recognised entity that governs a
well-defined territory
→ Borders are more or less fixed recognised by other states
→ Having a military, money, etc, to try to define even better what the state is
Where-as a nation is a group of people, held together by culture, identity, languages,
ethnicities, history…
- More or less defined, loose.
- Some are very bounded around historical features
- But they are NOT linked together by a state (e.g: the kurds)
5
, Sovereignty in IR today:
In the EU, there is also digital sovereignty, meaning you can’t be completely
sovereign if you have other countries taking part in your digital domain. There is a EU
plan to have EU digital sovereignty, but EU sovereignty on itself is an interesting
concept.
→ In IR theories, states are entities with well-defined territory and recognised
political authority.
● A state is not a nation or non-state actors
● Concept of failed and disaggregated states (series of political actors within an
internal state = many voices and ends up being an interaction rather than solid
governance)
● Concept of globalisation (to what extent is a state legitimate if globalisation impacts
internal politics and economy? → shift from state in the traditional sense → rise of
supra-national and global governance) and failed states (what do we consider a
sovereign state → ex: Palestine, Venezuela)
Examples (KNOW 2 OR 3):
● Transitria has a police, military, currency, and government, but it is not
recognised by any member of the UN.
● Veyshnoria is an imaginary country, it was created for a military exercise
between Bulgaria and Russia, but it got a lot of people excited.
● The Vatican is a yes and no. There is the Vatican city state, it is a very small
entity, but it overlaps with the Holy See. It has an observer status at UN,
diplomatic relations, part of IOs. But legal and political status is still debated
● Some states recognise Kosovo, usually are strong allies of the US.
● Palestine is a self-declared state, it has an observer status of the UN.
Recognised by a lot of states in the international community. But inversely to
Kosovo, a lot of UN allies do not recognise Palestine.
Examples: Should we recognise the IEA ?
- Yes
- Control and monopoly of the use of force
- Police and military force
- Acting government announced
- Some (limited) diplomatic outreach
- No
- No official recognition from other states (yet?)
- Legitimacy? Inclusive government ?
- Governance capacities?
Was ISIS a state ?
- Yes
- Control and governance of large areas of territory
- Available tax revenue
- Police and military force
